The Angry Young Man and his Good Son: Amitabh Bachchan and Shah Rukh Khan Introduction The Big B.

Transcription

1 The Angry Young Man and his Good Son: Amitabh Bachchan and Shah Rukh Khan Paper presented at Anthropology: One Region and a World Culture. Honorary Symposium on the Occasion of Elke Mader s 60th Birthday, Department of Cultural and Social Anthropology, University of Vienna, October 10, 2014 Claus Tieber Introduction In this paper I want to compare the star images of two major stars of Hindi cinema, Amitabh Bachchan and Shah Rukh Khan. I want to demonstrate that the filmmakers use their star images to tell their stories, and in this process a "parallel" narrative is constructed, which feeds on these two star texts. Star images are constructed from semiotic and social signs and meanings. In general they can be divided into on- and off screen images, but obviously these parts are closely connected. Star images are not fixed, unchangeable patterns of signs, but instead ongoing processes of creation, reception and re-creation. The reasons of their success and their changes are closely connected to changes in society and the organizational structure of their production. Star images can be seen as texts; in relation to the film text they are often called "parallel texts." "Parallel" may be a misleading term, because it implies that the two texts star text and film text has no points of contact, when in fact they influence each other heavily and are intertwined. The Big B. Amitabh Bachchan's career started in the early 1970s. His on-screen persona was created by the screenwriting duo Salim-Javed: Salim Khan and Javed Akthar and was made popular by directors like Yash Chopra or Manmohan Desai. Bachchan's character in these years was often called Vijay ("victory") or "the angry young man". The historical context of Bachchan's Vijay-films is India in the 1970s, first and foremost the 19 months of the Emergency, the suspension of democracy by Indira Gandhi. The anger of Bachchan's character is usually read against this background, his anger seems justified towards a highly corrupt society. Rachel Dwyer emphasis the importance of emotions in Hindi cinema and reads Bachchan's anger in an a-political way, as one of the attractions of Hindi cinema. (Dwyer 2009, pp ) I would argue that emotions are in itself political at least their representations in popular culture and that an accurate analysis of Bachchan's or any Hindi cinema's star's image have to combine the political as well as the emotional aspects, not to separate them. Bachchan's films of the 1970s focus more on action than on musical scenes. Bachchan's filmic characters changed in the 1990s, when he was no longer the angry YOUNG man, but these characters are written, directed, played and watched with the consciousness of his angry young man persona. 1

2 Shah Rukh Khan The Indian actor who best represents the "modern", globalized India, is without doubt Shah Rukh Khan. SRK started his career as an actor in television and his first characters were quite far from the charming young man of latter years. He played maniacal guys, stalkers and even murderers. Interestingly enough some of the traits of these characters can also be traced in his later, better-known films. There is a kind of determination in some of his characters that can be seen as pathological or "psychotic". (see Mazumdar in Vasudevan, ) SRK's star image was constructed by films like Diwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (1995) and most of all by the Karan Johar films, in which he plays rich, middle-class men in contrast to Bachchan, who played characters at the bottom of society who live in accordance with society, and only want to get the girl they love. SRK's characters succeed in their achievements Bachchan's die in most of the films. The secret of SRK's success is his charm, not his physical power, the films are less violent, include less if any action scenes and way more music than Bachchan's 1970s movies. His image is that of a charming, sensitive, emotional, and in no way angry young man. His goal in most of his films is to become the good son of a more or less traditional patriarch, it is not (only) to get the girl this goal is achieved long before. SRK's star image must be seen in the context of the globalization of India's economy and the rise and prosperity of the middle class in India itself as well as abroad. Whereas Bachchan's angry young man is fighting the system which he is angry with and in the end he loses and dies, SRK's charming wanna-be good son is totally accepting the system and in the end he wins and gets the girl and the blessings of the patriarchal character. In a couple of films this patriarch is played by Amithabh Bachchan. Bachchan playing with his image in SRK films There are a couple of films in which starring both Bachchan and SRK. One can categorize these films as follows: Films in which both play a leading or at least a major role (Mohabbatein, Khabhi Kushi Khabhieh Gam (K3G)) Films in which one of them plays the lead and the other has just a cameo appearance (Veer Zara, Boothnath, etc) And then there are remakes of Bachchan films in which SRK plays his role (Don) Though I can't cover all these films in 20 minutes, I want to focus on the two best known ones, in which both play: Mohabbatein and K3G, mostly in Mohabbatein. In both films Bachchan's first appearance is informed by his status within the Hindi film industry, his characters are linked to the audience's knowledge of his former films. 2

3 Mohabbatein: the Voice Mohabbatein, Aditya Chopra's follow-up to the successful and influential DDLG takes place in an Indian elite school/university and is a kind of an Indian version of Dead Poets Society meets Ghost. Bachchan plays the head of the school, and SRK the music teacher. Bachchan's first appearance is characterized by his voice. He is first heard, than seen. "What's this voice?" asks one of the students and then the camera takes us to a praying, traditionally clothed Bachchan. Bachchan's voice is one of his signature signs, a treat that distincts him from other actors and is part of the "secret of his success". His deep, sonor voice is one of his major traits. Bachchan is one of the few Indian actors who can be recognized by hearing his voice only. Even Satyajit Ray, who loathed Hindi cinema, used Bachchan's voice for the voice-over narration in his film The Chessplayers. Although there were attempts to use this voice in songs (a novelity in Hindi cinema, where no actor or actress sings for him/herself), filmmakers soon realized that the best (= most effective and therefore most successful) use of Bachchan's voice were dialogic situations. Vijay Mishra emphasizes this specificity of Bachchan's star image: "Before Amitabh Bachchan, no actor without the support of song had ever become a parallel text in Bombay cinema" (Mishra, 149) This means that every star of Hindi cinema before (and after) Bachchan was closely connected to songs, most of them had their signature songs, songs that sums up their image in three or four minutes. The best example for such a signature song would be Merā jūtā hai Jāpānī, ye patlūn Inglistānī Sar pe lāl ṭopī Rūsī, phir bhī dil hai Hindustānī Raj Kapoor's song in Shree 420. SRK's signature song would be Tujhe dekha toh yeh jaana sanam from DDLG. These songs are constantly quoted in other films and are part of what I would like to call the "Bollywood songbook". Mishra further states, that "for the Bachchan star personality, it is not the song but the dialogic situation" (Mishra, 149), that defines it. In some of his most important films of the 1970s, his character does not sing at all. Two points are responsible for this significant break in Indian film history: Bachchan's voice, which is used as a major ingredient of his stardom, and the changes in screenwriting that are represented by the innovative screenplays of Salim-Javed. "Dialogic situations" in the sense Mishra uses it, is a novelty in Hindi cinema of the 1970s. Salim-Javed were the first, who wrote the dialogues of their screenplays themselves. Before writing the plot and writing dialogue were distinct tasks, distinct crafts. In the films of Salim-Javed there were less songs and more dialogic situations that became attractions in themselves. They wrote lines that were made famous by 3

4 Bachchan and his co-stars, lines that Indian audiences remember and know by heart. The artistic rhetoric of these dialogues was not known before. The Voice In 2000 when Mohabbatein was shown in Indian cinemas, the audience has already heard Bachchan's voice and remembers classic dialogs of films like Deewar or Sholay. Bachchan's introductory scene in Mohabbatein is directed as any other star appearance, in a very conventional way. What distincts the scene from comparable ones is the emphasis in the voice. Mohabbatein is generally considered as Bachchan's comeback film, after his trip into politics and the corruption case that came with it. His characters in the mid-1990 and early 2000s films were often respected members of the establishment: rich, upper class and cast, wearing traditional clothing and closely connected to religious (Hindu) rituals. The status of these characters is paralleled by the status of Bachchan within the film industry: the star text informs the film text. It is quite ironic that Bachchan received this status by playing outsiders, characters at the lower bottom of society with an anti-authoritarian drive. The actor who once connected religious groups in almost any of his films is now playing the established Hindu patriarch, who gets challenged by a character, who represents almost the quote opposite of his 1970s persona SRK. Love and fear: representations of power The film is structured by a couple of scenes between SRK and Bachchan, most of them take place at the office, only the final scene shows us the private rooms of the head of the school, in which a big portrait of his late daughter hangs on the wall. These scenes are "dialogic" situations, although Bachchan underlines his stature by using very little words. The fight between these two men is not only a battle of influence the schoolmaster is getting it by fear, the music teacher by emotions he sets free in the young male students. SRK's love interest in this film is already dead when the film starts, so his goal is not to get the girl, but as I have mentioned before to get the blessings of her father. In the end he wins, not because he starts a revolt on the campus, but because he is able to evoke an emotional response by the Bachchan character. It is this game with emotions that can be noted in some of these mid-1990s/early 2000s films, that are so important for the (re-)definition of these two star images. The Bachchan character is hiding his emotions. SRK on the other hand is the personification of emotion (there is hardly a scene in which his eyes are not wet). But what does this struggle between old and new, between tradition and emotion mean? Is it really an "epic generational struggle between fear and love, tradition and postcolonialism" (Amit S. Rai, 34)? What is negotiated in Mohabbatein and in similar films are two approaches to the same issue, but these approaches are not oppositional, they differ only in one crucial point: the role and function of emotions, especially of love. This point is anything but a-political. Love is questioning a tradition, in which arranged marriage is seen as a cultural value. Arranged marriage functions as a major significant for Indian traditions and culture in these films. But in all these films the SRK character (or similar 4

5 characters played by other actors) is never questioning the tradition in itself, never questioning the patriarchal structure in which love is considered a western concept. "Arranged marriage" is reduced to its core and transformed to an updated version called "arranged love marriage": the blessings of the elders are all that the young lovers need. With the blessings, even a subversive emotion like love is allowed. Without these blessings, the authority of the patriarch is put into question. That is why the young lover has not only to win the heart of the girl, but also that of her father. Which is exactly what SRK's goal is in many of his 1990/2000s films. In Mohabbatein this goal is so important that the circumstance that the girl is dead does not stop him from finally becoming an accepted son-in-law: a good son, not a rebellious one. In this process he is not fighting the system; he is smoothly transforming it. The solution to the changes in economics and society, in gender roles and patriarchal structures, is an emotional update of the old system: the traditional patriarch, who has his own rebellious past, which established his position in society, is replaced by the young, charming one. Instead of the brutal, violent patriarch we get a sensitive one, "a patriarch to fall in love with" (Tieber 2006, 140). The system nevertheless remains the same. Transfer and transition of power At the end, SRK gets the girl as well as the blessings, which also means that he gets the power: the school or the firm. The close connection of family and business a classical Indian cliché is seen in Mohabbatein as well as in K3G: at the end the family is re-united and the rightful successor is put into place. Mohabbatein explicitly shows us this transfer of power, whereas in K3G it is only implied, by showing us the wrong one, the one to the "illegitimate" son. The close connection of business and family allows these films to negotiate the connected issues (tradition, modernity, arranged marriage, generation gap, patriarchal structures) on an emotional level. What we are shown is not a power struggle but an emotional, even psychological transformation of an aged system. The notion that the private is political is an old leftist slogan from the 1970s. In Hindi cinema of the millennium years, private emotions are indeed highly political. The distinction between private and public does not fit to these films, because there is (almost) no private space in Hindi cinema. The transition that comes with globalization, the new expectations of a middle-class youth thus comes not in form of an explicitly political rebellion, but in the way emotions are represented and valued. This is the main distinction between the Bachchan and the SRK characters. Bachchan plays characters, who are hiding their real emotions the angry young man as well as the old patriarch. Emotions are considered a sign of weakness, which would allow traditions to be changed. SRK on the other side makes a living by putting emotions centre stage. The power of emotions, especially love, is demonstrated in many of his films, most of all in Mohabbatein. (On another level these films are also constructing a story about the transfer of power within the Indian film industry. SRK is seeking for the blessings of India's greatest film star.) 5

6 Change In Mohabbatein as well as in K3G the term that is used to describe what is going on is "change". The Bachchan characters in both films explicitly argue against change. But "the times they are a changing" as Bob Dylan sings, and that is what these films wants us to believe: that an actual change is going on. To look back into Bachchan's 1970s films we see a corrupt, unjust society. The hero in these films is actively fighting the system, with violent and often illegal means. In the end he dies, the task to change the system is often given to a character, who represents the righteous way, often his brother. The dualism of the good and the bad son is a significant ingredient of Hindi cinema. SRK's characters on the other hand are not fighting at all, all they want is the blessing of their fathers in law and/or their real fathers. They do not want to change traditions, religious (Hindu) rituals, or patriarchal structures. They want more space for emotions, they want to conciliate love and arranged marriage, individual emotion and traditional values. The role of emotion in cinema, in Hindi cinema in commercial cinema The extraordinary role of emotion in Hindi cinema is quite obvious. Emotions are played out in a rather excessive way, not very subtle for most western eyes. Successful films are suspected to evoke (strong) emotions in their audience. Besides that the representation of emotions differs from western mainstream cinema. But emotions are indeed the cornerstone for any successful product of popular culture in India as well as in the rest of the world. Researching Hindi cinema can sharpen our eyes and ears to elements in Western cinema that are often overlooked. It also helps to notice that emotions are not only a mean to sell films, but that the representation of emotions as well as the popular discourse about it, are highly political issues, that are able to tell us something about our globalized, highly complicated world. Conclusion What I wanted to hint at is the circumstance that these films and the star images of Amitabh Bachchan and SRK are actually narrating a "parallel" story: the transfer of power via an emotional encounter. It is a story that starts with anger and rebellion, leads to an established position in the formerly fought society and ends with a transformation into a more sensitive, more openly emotional, but still patriarchal and highly hierarchal society. I think this narrative fits perfectly to this occasion and I leave it you to make connections between India's filmic worlds and the academic world we live in. 6

7 Literature Dwyer, Rachel: "Ich mag es, wenn Du zornig wirst: Amitabh Bachchan, Emotionen und Stars im Hindi-Film", in: Tieber, Claus (ed.): Fokus Bollywood. Das indische Kino in wissenschaftlichen Diskursen. Münster et al: Lit Verlag Pp Mazumdar, Ranjani, "From Subjectification to Schizophrenia: The 'Angry Man' and the 'Psychotic' Hero of Bombay Cinema, in: in: Vasudevan, Ravi S. (ed.): Making Meaning in Indian Cinema. New Dehli: Oxford University Press pp Mishra, Vijay: Bollywood Cinema. Temples of Desire. New York and London: Routledge 2002 Rai, Amit S.: Untimely Bollywood. Globalization and India s New Media Assemblage. Durham: Duke University Press 2009 Tieber, Claus: Passages to Bollywood. Einführung in den Hindifilm. Münster et al: Lit Verlag